Return - Entire thread - Last 10 posts

Scientists discover prehistoric cave with unknown lifeforms (41)


1 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU : 2006-06-01 16:42 ID:Heaven

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientists_discover_prehistoric_cave_with_unknown_lifeforms
"a cave containing an ecosystem with unknown lifeforms have been discovered in the Israeli city of Ramle."

Entire post...

2 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-06-18 15:44 ID:GLtQprf0

Cool, but I imagine this happens a lot. Just a guess but I think millions of species are yet to be identified.

3 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU : 2006-06-19 13:36 ID:GhaEo7Sz

The key word I wanted to stress here is evolution.
There seem to be an alarming, growing number of people who don't "believe" in evolution, despite scientific evidence.

4 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-06-19 14:12 ID:Heaven

This doesn't bring anything new, does it. Those animals haven't changes species before their eyes or anything.

5 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-06-19 14:13 ID:Heaven

>>4 changed species, i meant

6 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-06-19 19:04 ID:DY41vDUD

uhhh, is this supposed to be proof of evolution then? Cause lots of animals have lost their eyes like this. I thought it was cool because it's several new species at once.

If you wanna discuss evolution though . . .

7 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-06-19 20:43 ID:GhaEo7Sz

Well, "no sunlight for 5 million years", I thought that part sounded quite dramatic, I wanted to say it. :)

-- Sling.

8 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-07-10 22:28 ID:Heaven

Naturally species without eyes would compete out species with eyes in such an environment. Eyeless species would have other better developed senses, and would also not waste energy on superflous organs. Evolution or not, this is not proof of it, there are eyeless creatures in caves that are not cut of from the outside world too. This is no more proof for evolution than the fact that land-living creatures have legs while sea-living creatures have fens. Not that this is a proof too.

9 Name: Nintenfreak : 2006-07-22 21:15 ID:DRAQcYcG

Anonymous Scientist, you really are daft aren't you? You call yourself a scientist, but hide yourself behind a veil of lies and deceit. Like it or not, this IS proof of evolution. You said so yourself. "Naturally species without eyes would compete out species with eyes in such an environment. Eyeless species would have other better developed senses, and would also not waste energy on superflous organs." The rest of your arguement is a total piece of garbage that contradict your previous statement.

10 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-07-23 16:21 ID:cEx0097K

>>9
It doesn't contradict his previous statement. What he said first was a hypothesis for what could have happened in the cave.

There is no proof because even if there were layers of skeletons under the ground showing how that particular species lost its eyes, God could have done it.

Entire post...

11 Name: Val : 2006-07-29 01:52 ID:hTK+lu1k

There is at least one proof that evolution happens.
Living beings, by definition, create approximate copies of themselves, right? Humans will generate more humans, fish will generate more fish, etc, etc... These copies have errors, that can go from minuscule (vague change in the shape of the skull) to extreme (hydrocephalus, retardation, etc, etc...). Now, these errors can appear on any sequence of genes. It logically follows that some errors will make certain beings slightly better adapted to one's environment (a few more neurons traded for stability, a few more muscle fibers traded for dexterity, ...), and that these beings will have a better chance of surviving and passing on these changes to the following generation. Supposing a few small changes per generation, over a few thousands of generations, you may have changed a specie into another, and over a few million, you may have created a completely new type of organism.

Entire post...

12 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-07-31 19:58 ID:DY41vDUD

Evolution simply put, is our best attempt at understanding natural forces seen in the fossil record of our planet. We can see that there existed simple life forms, then more complex forms, then modern highly complex forms. We do not for instance, find horses in the Paleozoic era. How they evolved, whether by divine or random forces is left up to the individual.

Entire post...

13 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-03 05:06 ID:CHoJEqjh

>>11
No new phyla have emerged since the Cambrian period (300? million BC). Why does some stuff change and other stuff doesn't? Evolution must have limits, the question is "where?"

14 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-05 05:47 ID:MvfJoMJH

Uh.

Evolution is change in allele frequencies in a breeding population over time. That's all. It is genetic change in a species. It is natural, observable, and in fact unavoidable and unstoppable due to constant mutations that accumulate in the genome.

Entire post...

15 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-08 21:43 ID:Heaven

> Comments like "macroevolution does not take place" stem from ignorance about what these terms mean.

as do comments like "Evolution is change in allele frequencies in a breeding population over time. That's all. It is genetic change in a species. It is natural, observable, and in fact unavoidable and unstoppable due to constant mutations that accumulate in the genome.".

Entire post...

16 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-08 22:50 ID:Heaven

>>15

Sure, if you close your eyes hard enough, you can't see the evidence AT ALL!

17 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-09 08:05 ID:CHoJEqjh

>>Evolution is change in allele frequencies in a breeding population over time. That's all. It is genetic change in a species. It is natural, observable, and in fact unavoidable and unstoppable due to constant mutations that accumulate in the genome.
Entire post...

18 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-09 12:50 ID:Heaven

>>16
And if you close them even harder, you CAN see the evidence!
or just weird psychedelic spots...

19 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-13 18:37 ID:MvfJoMJH

>>17, when you ask for the "how," what precisely are you asking for?

The mechanism? Mutations can arise from many sources, radiation (including ultraviolet light) and exposure to mutagenic chemicals among them. Or are you asking how rapidly mutations accumulate? Obviously it's different from species to species due to differing lengths of generations as well as differing evolutionary pressures and different external factors that can make mutation more rapid in specific environments.

Entire post...

20 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-13 19:35 ID:Heaven

>>19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

21 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-21 23:42 ID:MvfJoMJH

>>20, I am quite familiar with the scientific method.

We observe nature, we form a hypothesis--a guess, in other words--about some aspect of nature, we test it to prove it or disprove it.

Entire post...

22 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-22 20:10 ID:Heaven

> We observe nature, we form a hypothesis--a guess, in other words--about some aspect of nature, we test it to prove it or disprove it.

yes, but it's only used for scientific hypotheses.

Entire post...

23 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-22 21:38 ID:DY41vDUD

>>22

Uhh. As I said earlier. The "proof" for evolution exists in the fossil record. I put that in quotes because we can't be certain the mechanism for evolution isn't divine. Other then that we certainly can predict with resonable accuracy the timelines involved in the fossil record. Therefore time travel isn't necessary. Or do you have a better idea for how fossils got there?

24 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-22 23:26 ID:Heaven

>>23
due to the somewhat unstable nature of the earth's crust and the annoying habit of humans to pick up fossils and put them down elsewhere, fossils cannot be reliably for proof of when or where a particular plant or animal lived.

Entire post...

25 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-23 12:18 ID:Heaven

>>24

Wow, thank you for pointing out that the entire fields of archeology and geology are totally meaningless. Now that we've found out, we can finally stop doing them. Your genius outshines even the sun with its brilliance.

26 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-24 03:44 ID:Heaven

>>25
you're missing the point.
my point is that science and history are not the same thing.
it is impossible to have scientific proof of history.

27 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-26 12:56 ID:MvfJoMJH

>>23 we can't be certain the mechanism for evolution isn't divine.

...

Entire post...

28 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-26 13:01 ID:Heaven

>>26

I'll make sure to tell the historians, so they can stop too.

Entire post...

29 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-26 16:50 ID:MvfJoMJH

>>a historical hypothesis such as evolution

So, biology, zoology, biochemistry, genetic engineering, and bioinformatics aren't science?

Entire post...

30 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-29 08:10 ID:LIEvFyB7

>>we can't be certain the mechanism for evolution isn't divine.

But then again there isnt any evidence that it is either. And i mean actual things that you can see in your face and makes sense to everyone even if they have their own biases or whatever.

Entire post...

31 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-29 16:20 ID:DY41vDUD

>>24

Sure carbon dating isn't perfect, nor can it be used for dates older then around 2 million years but there's other forms of dating. Like lakebed sediment dating or tree-ring dating.

Entire post...

32 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-30 01:13 ID:isZaPAJa

>>31
But then again comes the question of personal belief. I myself am a buddhist, and know that i'm a believer in that, such as you are a believer in what you believe in.

Entire post...

33 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-30 07:36 ID:pJFMWygG

"The cave has been closed off to the public so researchers can examine it further."

man you just know that those researchers will go missing and then we have to send a team of commandos in there that will have to stop whatever is there from getting out. all but one (possibly two if they are a couple) of the commando team will survive.

34 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-30 16:47 ID:Heaven

> "The cave has been closed off to the public so researchers can examine it further."

that means they don't want anyone to know that there's not really anything interesting down there when they try to get grant money to study it.

35 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-09-03 03:56 ID:Heaven

>>34
I bet there's a big party going on with self-aware dinosaurs

36 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-09-26 09:19 ID:PG5CHKZ9

>>35
Under the guise of partying, what they're really doing is trying to figure out whether the dinosaurs believe in GOD too.

37 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-09-26 09:20 ID:PG5CHKZ9

^ I meant to add, scientifically, of course.

38 Name: z : 2006-11-20 11:27 ID:1QsC4hZK

>>32

>But the ultimate answer, the one that we'll know for sure, at which no one and i mean NO ONE will be able to put up an argument against. That's the one that'll come when we go kaputz. Well thats what i believe anyways.
Entire post...

39 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-11-20 19:17 ID:GhaEo7Sz

I'll meet an old comet when I die?

40 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-11-21 09:21 ID:Heaven

>>39

you better believe it!

41 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-11-21 13:11 ID:Heaven

>>40
The Hale-Bopp comet is Heaven's Gate!